Tradescantia hirsutiflora
Tradescantia pedicellata
hairyflower spiderwort
Edwards Plateau spiderwort
1–1.5(–2) mm thick, scarcely fleshy.
some tuberous, thick.
unbranched or sparsely branched, 5–50 cm;
internodes densely spreading, pilose or hirsute to glabrous.
spreading and diffuse, much branched, mainly from base, pubescent with glandular hairs, eglandular hairs, or mixture.
spirally arranged, sessile;
blade linear-lanceolate, 10–32 × 0.6–2 cm (distal leaf blades equal to or narrower than sheaths when sheaths opened, flattened), apex acuminate, usually pilose, occasionally glabrous or glabrescent.
recurved and somewhat lax;
blade dark green to yellowish green, linear-lanceolate, mostly 20–30 × 0.5–1.0 cm (distal leaf blades equal to or narrower than sheaths when sheaths opened, flattened), sparsely to densely pubescent.
terminal, sometimes axillary;
bracts foliaceous, well developed, not saccate, sparsely to densely pilose.
terminal, solitary, or more commonly also with lateral, pedunculate inflorescences;
bracts foliaceous, similar to leaves in form, sparsely to densely pubescent.
distinctly pedicillate;
pedicels 1–3 cm, usually pilose;
sepals not inflated, 7–16 mm, usually uniformly eglandular-pilose, rarely a few inconspicuous glandular hairs present;
petals distinct, bright blue to rose, rarely white, broadly ovate, not clawed, 12–19 mm;
stamens free;
filaments bearded.
distinctly pedicillate;
pedicels 2.5–4.5 cm, densely pubescent with medium to long, glandular hairs;
sepals 6–11 mm, densely pubescent with glandular hairs like those of pedicels, occasionally with a few eglandular hairs;
petals distinct, pink to dark blue, broadly ovate, not clawed;
stamens free;
filaments bearded.
5–7 mm.
2–3 mm.
2–4 mm;
hilum as long as seed.
= 12, 24.
= 12.
Tradescantia hirsutiflora
Tradescantia pedicellata
Tradescantia hirsutiflora was considered their most ill-defined species by E. Anderson and R. E. Woodson Jr. (1935). The difficulties in separating it from T. virginiana have been mentioned under that species. A specimen from Beaufort County, South Carolina appears to be a hybrid between T. hirsutiflora and T. ohiensis, but there is no record of T. hirsutiflora from the state. Some specimens from Highlands County, Florida will key to, and probably are, T. hirsutiflora. They represent a range disjunction from the Florida panhandle. Their relationships with the co-occurring T. roseolens are being investigated.
This species commonly has been confused with Tradescantia hirsuticaulis (J. K. Small 1933; R. P. Wunderlin 1982), perhaps because of the similar name. They are not closely related.
Specimens of Tradescantia hirsutiflora with glandular hairs on the sepals were not found by D. T. MacRoberts (1980b). In Texas plants with glandular hairs are frequent, and the glandular hairs may be numerous and conspicuous. These plants, which have been referred to T. bracteata by MacRoberts, need to be investigated further. I have also seen three sheets of T. hirsutiflora from Louisiana and one from Mississippi that have a few inconspicuous glandular hairs among the numerous longer, eglandular ones.
The following hybrids are known: Tradescantia hirsutiflora × T. occidentalis, from Alabama, Louisiana; T. hirsutiflora × T. ohiensis, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina; T. hirsutiflora × T. paludosa, Arkansas, Louisiana; and T. hirsutiflora × T. roseolens, Florida.
(Discussion copyrighted by Flora of North America; reprinted with permission.)
Tradescantia pedicellata is a most unsatisfactory species. The species may have arisen as a hybrid between Tradescantia humilis and T. occidentalis and been recognized as a species because of its constant morphology and high pollen fertility (R. P. Celarier 1956). C. Sinclair (1967) concluded, however, that there was no evidence for the species' existence, and I have found it very difficult to recognize specimens that agree with the original description (no type has been located).
Tradescantia diffusa Bush, a name overlooked by E. Anderson and R. E. Woodson Jr. (1935), has been considered the correct name for this plant (D. T. MacRoberts 1978). After examining the type of T. diffusa, I concluded that it was conspecific with the type of T. humilis.
(Discussion copyrighted by Flora of North America; reprinted with permission.)
LA Plants
MO Plants
WildflowerSearch
iNaturalist
USDA Plants Database
